Charles Bannerman

I am simply responding to Mr Pimple who posted an apparently genuine query as to what the Ides of March actually are. It seems there is no game that day but it remains to see what Wednesday may or may not bring.

I remember doing this in Latin in about 2nd Year. Each month in the Roman calendar had three fixed points - the Kalends (hence "calendar") which were always the 1st, plus the Nones and the Ides on the 5th and 13th - except for March, July, October and May when they were the 7th and 15th. The Ides of March (or as the soothsayer said "cave Idus Martias - beware the Ides of March") are hence the 15th - ie next Wednesday. Today, the 10th of March, is hence "the fifth day before the Ides of March" or (approximately, all these years on from Caesar in Room 14!) "ante diem quintus Idus Martias". There may also have been an abbreviation something like "a. d. V Id Mar".

You seem not to have taken into account the principle that statistically likely outcomes are less reliable in the short term but become more reliable as the number of results increases.

As Julius Caesar might also have said on the Ides of March.... I think I get the point!! Based on other seasons, around 33 points to avoid bottom and 36 to avoid 11th might not seem a bad estimate of what's required this time. To get there would require immediate and sustained improvements of 23% and 57% over what has unfolded in 27 games so far. In the case of avoiding the playoffs, that's 14 points from 33 available... as compared with the "better" early season tally of 14 from 36 which Alternative mentions. HOWEVER what's needed to avoid bottom is actually less formidable than it was before the Hearts game since these three very difficult recent matches actually yielded more points than that particular target required. In practice this could all turn on the six pointer at Motherwell on April 15th and two more against Hamilton and Motherwell post-split. One, or very possibly two remaining Highland Derbies also loom large.

So where does this leave your earlier statement that if Caley Thistle didn't get 3 points from their next three games (Hearts + OF) then relegation was certain? After the Rangers game saw that target overtaken, I asked you "That's now four points from the first two of them, so does the converse apply? Does this now mean equally definite safety?"... to which you replied "Are you fick or wot ? Of course it is the converse and sets us up fer Cellic." But now you appear to have abandoned that converse, changed your mind again and once more consider the team to be in "BIG trouble". Confused, Inverness.

Is there not something a bit strange here? As I write we are less than three hours away from a game against the Premiership Champions which the team unfortunately goes into back at the bottom of the table. But since midnight last night all that has gone up on the Caley Thistle section of this forum is a single, nine word post referring to the reason for ICT being back bottom - plus no fewer than TEN posts on this thread where people are squabbling about a former Caley Thistle manager who is now in charge of a struggling lower league club.

Three points last night have now been reinforced by three of the other five results going ICT's way... and the three most important ones in that they saw the rest of the bottom four lose.

Spelling and split infinitives as well! OK then IHE.... you said before the Hearts game that fewer than 3 points from the next three games would mean definite relegation. That's now four points from the first two of them, so does the converse apply? Does this now mean equally definite safety? Does the nature of this victory remind anyone of the legendary John Rankin "squiggler" which snatched victory against the same opponents (Kingsmills may disagree!!) in an evening match in December 2006?

I was wondering the same thing. Hearts have never been liquidated. They have only been in administration and their SPL presence was only interrupted by a relegation which came in the standard way - as a result of them finishing bottom, albeit expedited by the penalty points imposed as a result of that administration. But, having had the privilege of witnessing the entire odyssey even since before the first of these games, it's "Number 1000" that I would prefer to concentrate on. Tomorrow night, if I could ask for the clock to be turned back to any of its predecessors, it would be John Rankin's legendary 2006 Yuletide squiggler!

Bughtmaster... there are times when the best strategy is simply to stop digging!

Irrespective of what Hughes may actually have wanted, it involved money which wasn't there and it simply isn't realistic to suggest that it should have been forthcoming.

The delusion that the Board has some obligation to conjure up money from where it doesn't exist is becoming quite tiresome. What perhaps also needs looked at is Hughes' ability (or lack of it) to produce credible teams on an obviously limited budget. I have already said in another post that a certain amount of what he did was on Butcher's signings while his own signings may struggle to survive a critical look. Hughes' second year at Raith could be interesting.

Huge turn round from the 5-1 on the last visit there.... probably to be regarded as a "bonus" in relation to what might have been expected.... other results went Caley Thistle's way so a point closer to potential safety. Between one thing and another, this has to be regarded as the best ICT match day for some time. But the absolute priority is to sustain any progress... two swallows... summers... etc etc.

Alan.... for several years now, ICT has had two basic sources of income and relies on them BOTH to maintain its ongoing business (ie keep its head above water) - 1) regular earnings like league gate receipts, TV money and SPFL dividends and 2) Windfalls. These include the likes of transfer fees, cup runs (not, as Don says, Europe though), an exceptionally high league placing, one-off investments and even on one occasion selling the club's last significant tangible asset, the Social Club. Unfortunately there has been this misapprehension that any time one of these windfalls comes along, the purse strings can suddenly be loosened and the club can start splashing out on extra players. It doesn't work that way. All the things I mentioned in category 2 are part and parcel of basic operations and if there's a period when they DON'T happen then I would imagine that a bit of financial concern materialises. For instance I have always understood the sale of the Social Club to have been made to fill such a gap. As a result, it's a non-starter to suggest "pushing the boat out". There is no boat there! What you said about ambition was "if the board had matched (Yogi's) ambition.... I believe we'd have been pushing for Europe". That cannot be construed as anything other than an implication that the Board's ambition is inadequate or lacking. It also, however, implies that Yogi's expectation of how much money should be available was the realistic one and the Board were in some respect falling short in some way. It could instead be argued that Yogi did fine with Butcher's team but when it came to having to sign his own players, he was unable to do this in as financially efficient a manner as his predecessors.

For a start, it's nonsensical to suggest that the Board lacks ambition. Cash maybe... well definitely... but certainly not ambition. Where are you actually suggesting the Board would have got the cash to "push the boat out" as described?

IHE... of these five listed factors, only the first two are direct determinants of ongoing performance and none of them provides an argument to support your initial, very specific cause and effect statement which was "Unless we pick up at least three points from the next three games we are going down." That says that unless that intermediate outcome is achieved, there will be a definite consequence, which simply isn't the case. The only point at which any outcome like finishing bottom becomes inevitable is when the points arithmetic says so. Until then, you have to deal with probabilities - for instance if a team is not doing well, relegation becomes increasingly probable but isn't confirmed until the point of numerical certainty. To quote a precedent, there were those who said that unless Caley Thistle beat Dundee at Dens in March 2010, they were not going to win the First Division. They were pegged back to a draw at Dens, but we know what happened thereafter. I am not being "happy clappy" about the current situation but merely reluctant to use certainties when probabilities are more appropriate. I would therefore suggest that relegation looks likely unless, across the rest of the season, there's an improvement of 40%+ on the current rate of scoring points. I would also have to add that three games ago, before the Partick encounter, that targeted improvement was just 30%+ but has risen because the two points from these three games were below target. Points from Hearts and the Old Firm are (in theory at least) less likely than from other clubs so it's quite possible that your suggested 3 points won't materialise. However that wouldn't guarantee relegation - it would simply toughen the target even further to maybe 50%+. That isn't guaranteed relegation by any means but as time goes by, the arithmetic tips more and more against unless a revival starts - with confidence and morale, I agree, increasing issues.

I don't quite buy into that. What would become 21 points from 27 games doesn't tell much more of the story than the current 18 from 24. The "going down" criterion is more likely to be getting around 33 points from the full 38 games which are the final arbiter of this. 33 points is round about what should avoid bottom place (not guaranteed), with a bit more to avoid the play offs. To reach 33 from 38 would require 15 from the last 14 games or an average of about 1.07 per game. ICT is currently on 0.75 per game so an average improvement of over 40% is needed FOR THE REST OF THE PROGRAMME. On the other hand, playing Hearts and the OF would normally produce less than the going rate of that target which is around the three IHE suggests. Either way, I don't think making predictions from the next three games is going to reveal too much - UNLESS their outcomes reflect a decline - or improvement - in morale. Otherwise, getting fewer than 3 points from the next three games simply increased the target from the 11after that.

Pretty effusive tribute to Les from Archie MacP, given what ultimately transpired!

Roshie!!!! And then there was Murd's legendary "shoulder charge" on... was it Danny McGrain?? I'm sure you will also remember Roshie's last game in charge right at the end of 1985 - a 2-all draw in a friendly at Kingsmills against a good Celtic side managed by a VERY sore Davie Hay!

The manager gave a very full, 3 minute plus, interview to Charlie Mann of BBC Scotland after the Hamilton game. This is also quoted on BBC online and in addition he spoke to the written press. Having on very many occasions interviewed football managers just minutes after very painful, damaging and indeed career-threatening defeats, I have to say that, in the vast majority of cases, I only have the greatest of regard and respect for what they come out and do. OK, they are contractually obliged to do much of it but it really must be so hard on many occasions since they are severely hurting not only from a sporting/competitive point of view, but often with respect to their professional futures..

I am not even going to express an opinion on the original question, but I really can't allow this nonsense about Scott Kellacher and Brian Rice to go unremarked. I am fully in agreement with Old Caley Girl's question a few posts ago - where is the evidence? Quite frankly Cable Guy's subsequent attempt to provide some is totally laughable. Would Cable Guy blame the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Great Train Robbery because he happened to be staying at a hotel nearby? Then you get the justification prefaced by "I quite often pass by Fort George and see the players playing...." which plumbs completely new depths of absurdity. This whole notion is straight out of a "Depute Heads Will Roll" storyline from Yes Minister. In fact as I write, Row S has just posted, giving me the inspiration to come up with the somewhat more credible notion of blaming the vanilla top! The situation:- Inverness Caledonian Thistle sits three points adrift at the bottom of the Premiership and five points adrift of 10th place (both plus goal difference). To reach the kind of points total that will avoid finishing bottom, the team needs to take more or less as many points from its last 15 games as it has so far from its first 23... and more than that to avoid a relegation play-off, most probably against Dundee United. The reason?: There is no single reason and I believe that what is happening at the moment is the kind of perfect storm of several adverse circumstances, some long term, some short term, which very often accompanies extreme situations like this. To remain consistent with my opening sentence, I will refrain from confirming or denying what I believe these circumstances to be.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mantis' payoff line about Sky. Wage levels are absurdly high in the EPL and are in turn forcing other clubs to live very dangerously. To be realistic, wage levels across the game are unrealistically high in relation to true market value and performamce levels. Even if you look at a stadium near you, does working productively once a fortnight in front of 3-4000 people and every alternate week to allow another club's players to do the same justify being paid a ballpark £1K a week? And you can possibly extend that question even further when applied to a stadium not quite so near you. Then there's the Highland League where some can get hundreds a week and four figure signing on fees for not being very good, training once or twice a week and playing in front of a few hundred. This is nonsense. DD makes a couple of very interesting points and I am going to have to think long and hard about the proposotion that smaller clubs can't afford decent players in relation to the question - where, then, are these decent players going if the rich clubs are already full of more decent ones? Then there's the question of compensation for having your game televised. Is that not, in effect, what the broadcasters already pay the leagues for through their contract fees?

Trouble is that Elginloon now faces a Breach of Copyright action from across the Beauly Firth for applying terminology specific to "another place" to the wrong football club.

I suppose that may depend on how vital the home point ultimately turns out to be to the effort to avoid relegation.